[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1295598003.1949.943.camel@sli10-conroe>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:03 +0800
From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: "Shi, Alex" <alex.shi@...el.com>,
"vgoyal@...hat.com" <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
"jaxboe@...ionio.com" <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [performance bug] kernel building regression on 64 LCPUs
machine
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 15:23 +0800, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:55 AM, Alex,Shi <alex.shi@...el.com> wrote:
> > Shaohua and I tested kernel building performance on latest kernel. and
> > found it is drop about 15% on our 64 LCPUs NHM-EX machine on ext4 file
> > system. We find this performance dropping is due to commit
> > 749ef9f8423054e326f. If we revert this patch or just change the
> > WRITE_SYNC back to WRITE in jbd2/commit.c file. the performance can be
> > recovered.
> >
> > iostat report show with the commit, read request merge number increased
> > and write request merge dropped. The total request size increased and
> > queue length dropped. So we tested another patch: only change WRITE_SYNC
> > to WRITE_SYNC_PLUG in jbd2/commit.c, but nothing effected.
> >
> > we didn't test deadline IO mode, just test cfq. seems insert write
> > request into sync queue effect much read performance, but we don't know
> > details. What's your comments of this?
> >
> > iostat of .37 kernel:
> > rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
> > 22.5772 96.46 92.3742 14.747 1.0048 0.439474 34.8557 0.18078 3.8076 0.30447 2.94302
> > iostat of commit reverted .37:
> > 26.6223 80.21 107.875 6.03538 1.51415 0 41.3275 0.153385 3.80569 0.377231 3.22323
>
> From these numbers, it seems to me that with the patch reverted, the
> write bandwidth is really low, and probably you are keeping most
> written files in the buffer cache during the whole compile, while the
> non-reverted kernel is making progress in writing out the files. So
> the 'improved' read bandwidth is due to unfairness w.r.t. writes.
> Does the result change if you add a final sync and time that as well,
> in order to see the full time to make it on disk?
>
> I think that in a more extreme test where you end up filling all the
> buffer cache with written data, you will see much longer stalls with
> the revert than without.
Not just bandwidth issue. cpu might have more idle. so I bet even the
'kbuild + sync' workload still has regression
And the no-write-merge of WRITE_SYNC isn't good, at least we should use
WRITE_SYNC_PLUG.
Thanks,
Shaohua
> >
> > vmstat report show, read bandwidth dropping:
> > vmstat of .37:
> > r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa st
> > 3.4 52.6 0.0 64303937.0 16466.7 121544.5 0.0 0.0 2102.7 1914.6 7414.1 3185.7 2.0 1.0 80.3 16.7 0.0
> > vmstat of revert all from .37
> > 2.2 35.8 0.0 64306767.4 17265.6 126101.2 0.0 0.0 2415.8 1619.1 8532.2 3556.2 2.5 1.1 83.0 13.3 0.0
> >
> > Regards
> > Alex
> >
> > ===
> > diff --git a/fs/jbd/commit.c b/fs/jbd/commit.c
> > index 34a4861..27ac2f3 100644
> > --- a/fs/jbd/commit.c
> > +++ b/fs/jbd/commit.c
> > @@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ void journal_commit_transaction(journal_t *journal)
> > int first_tag = 0;
> > int tag_flag;
> > int i;
> > - int write_op = WRITE_SYNC;
> > + int write_op = WRITE;
> >
> > /*
> > * First job: lock down the current transaction and wait for
> > diff --git a/fs/jbd2/commit.c b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> > index f3ad159..69ff08e 100644
> > --- a/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> > +++ b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> > @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ void jbd2_journal_commit_transaction(journal_t *journal)
> > int tag_bytes = journal_tag_bytes(journal);
> > struct buffer_head *cbh = NULL; /* For transactional checksums */
> > __u32 crc32_sum = ~0;
> > - int write_op = WRITE_SYNC;
> > + int write_op = WRITE;
> >
> > /*
> > * First job: lock down the current transaction and wait for
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists